"Detlef Riekenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The large subject is an indicator, that the Patch can be splitted.
> IMHO, moving the stubs to a different file can be a seperate patch.
If the APIs get rewritten at the same time IMO it's ok to move them.
--
Dmitry.
"Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -363,10 +363,14 @@ INT WINAPI LoadStringW( HINSTANCE instance, UINT
> resource_id,
> WCHAR *p;
> int string_num;
> int i;
> +int strlen;
strlen is not the best variable name.
> TRACE("instance = %p, id = %04x, buffer = %p, length
On Jan 21, 2008 6:25 PM, Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mo, 2008-01-21 at 16:33 +0100, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> >
> > +static void test_GetICMProfileA( HDC dc )
>
> Please check GetLastError() as much as possible
> (Add comments, when GetLastError() does not return something usabl
On Mo, 2008-01-21 at 16:33 +0100, Hans Leidekker wrote:
>
> +static void test_GetICMProfileA( HDC dc )
Please check GetLastError() as much as possible
(Add comments, when GetLastError() does not return something usable
> +size = MAX_PATH;
> +ret = GetICMProfileA( dc, &size, NULL );
> +
On Mo, 2008-01-21 at 16:33 +0100, Hans Leidekker wrote:
- gdi32: Make GetICMProfile behave more like native. Rewrite ansi
version as a wrapper and move color management functions to their own
file.
The large subject is an indicator, that the Patch can be splitted.
IMHO, moving the stubs to a diff
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 2:47 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jason Green a écrit :
> Eric, below are the responses from Eric van Beurden, who wrote the
> patch. I merely split it up and removed a bunch of traces for
> submission to WineHQ. The problem is that all of our changes were
> done initially in just a couple of huge commits during the initial
> imp
On Jan 21, 2008 2:47 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> It's not clear what this test is
On Jan 21, 2008 2:44 PM, Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 19 January 2008, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> > Sorry to other list readers about offtopic rant, but I can't stand when
> > people attack software that I like.
>
> I don't think what I said amounts to an attack. I've reported wh
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>>
>>> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
to LoadStringW is supposed to
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> Sorry to other list readers about offtopic rant, but I can't stand when
> people attack software that I like.
I don't think what I said amounts to an attack. I've reported what works for
me, and one of the problems I had with squirrelmail.
> >
On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
> >> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
> >> don'
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
>> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
>> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
>> to copi
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +static void test_LoadStringW(void)
>> +{
>> +HINSTANCE hInst = GetModuleHandle(NULL);
>> +WCHAR copiedstring[128], returnedstring[128], *resourcepointer =
>> NULL;
>> +int strlen, strlen2;
>> +
>> +/* Check th
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
>> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
>> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
>> to copi
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2008 18:59:50 schrieb Darragh Bailey:
> Wondering what flavour of Windows XP people would recommend for testing
> on? Is there any benefit to getting Professional over the Home edition?
>
> Or does Home have everything that is needed to be capable of developing
> and testing c
Wondering what flavour of Windows XP people would recommend for testing
on? Is there any benefit to getting Professional over the Home edition?
Or does Home have everything that is needed to be capable of developing
and testing conformance tests?
--
Darragh
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficien
Eric, below are the responses from Eric van Beurden, who wrote the
patch. I merely split it up and removed a bunch of traces for
submission to WineHQ. The problem is that all of our changes were
done initially in just a couple of huge commits during the initial
import of dbghelp instead of nice,
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Solution 1: Fix the generation of include statements in header files
> generated from the IDL to include the path. This has the issue that it
> is not compatible with MIDL, so testing our IDL files with it becomes
> difficult (MIDL appears to only sear
"Paul Chitescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +HRESULT WINAPI LoadStringRCEx(LCID culture, UINT resId, LPWSTR pBuffer, int
> iBufLen, int bQuiet, int* pBufLen)
> +{
> +HRESULT res = S_OK;
> +if ((iBufLen <= 0) || !pBuffer)
> +return E_INVALIDARG;
> +pBuffer[0] = 0;
> +if (r
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
> to copiedstring are not needed.
>
> A
"Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static void test_LoadStringW(void)
> +{
> +HINSTANCE hInst = GetModuleHandle(NULL);
> +WCHAR copiedstring[128], returnedstring[128], *resourcepointer = NULL;
> +int strlen, strlen2;
> +
> +/* Check that the string which is returned by Loa
22 matches
Mail list logo
